There are difference in climate, but genetic analysis shows that it's also because of different genetic sources. Even the Indian government refuses to accept history breaks it down as ANI and ASI. Even the physical features are more abbo like in the south, while north is getting more and more sand. Why would the British give wealth to random Indians. India is much richer than it was when the British took control, and under the British it didn't get poorer, the average person didn't get poorer.
India's economy was more than twice the size as the British left than it had been when they arrived. Unfortunately, it was Malthusian growth, an increase in the number of people, not an increase in living standards. As with most economic growth across history, before an industrial revolution.
www.forbes.com
Not true. Colonialism only leaves the colonists better off in gaining resources, women, legacy and status but makes the colonized poorer off and having to play economic catch up to get back to the state they were before being taken over by outsiders.
There is a reason talk of such things like reparations exist for groups that were marginalized and set back economically and socially in the past.
Furthermore from your reference this "growth" is referred to more in terms of output per capita like population but mentions the living standards didn't improve.
"India's economy was more than twice the size as the British left than it had been when they arrived. Unfortunately, it was Malthusian growth, an increase in the number of people, not an increase in living standards. As with most economic growth across history, before an industrial revolution."
Decades of demoralization and humiliation from having been conquered and plundered also leaves deep emotional scars not easily accounted for through official measurements like GDP and can influence new generations' ideas of what is possible for them.
Just like bullying was once thought to be something you can bounce back from but now has been found to have long lasting detrimental effects so it is with European colonization and future generations of children born in formerly colonized countries.
It's not as simple as getting over it even if it is no longer present.
True, it is derailing it but you keep on going and going. I will respond to whoever makes a post here. But if you want, then I will go back to the original topic. What do you think about females using demographics to control the sexual market place? I think they know what they are doing because they let in men in mass but it's only a problem when an excess number of women are entering. Funny how that works.
I keep on going on because I'm not going to concede to your view that the British deserve to keep what they looted and not give it back to India. I believe in this strongly and I'm not going to change my mind.
But going back to the original topic I think that females do view things in the sexual market place through a racial lens just like males do. However I believe a lot of the angst of white females is more on behalf of ethnic and asian females that they see as "settling" for subpar white guys and not shooting above their limit for chads like white females do.
If the ethnic and asian females have access to white chads I have only ever seen white females congratulate them and say things like you go girl and know your worth and all sorts of mental masturbation pat-on-the-back circlejerking statements.
This makes sense if you take into account the in-group bias preference of women and how women despite any squabbles and cattiness at the end of the day work more in their collective self interest than men do.
Also women want as wide as an assortment of sexual partners to choose from while being able to limit men's available assortment of sexual partners. They want to have a perpetual SMV advantage over men in every arena.